A PRACTICAL SCHEME FOR LIGHT RAIL EXTENSIONS IN INNER SYDNEY Tony Prescott This article originally appeared in Transit Australia, vol. 63, no. 11 (November 2008), pages 323-330; vol. 63, no. 12 (December 2008), pages 355-360; and vol. 64, no. 1 (January 2009), pages 4-6. It has been edited for digital publication on 14 November 2008. © 2008 Background This article addresses the practicalities of extending inner-Sydney’s light rail network along the corridors broadly suggested in a number of official and community proposals over the last two decades, ranging from the general 1997 Light Rail Strategic Plan (NSW Public Transport Advisory Council) to the detailed 2005 Glazebrook report (Glazebrook Associates 2005), recommendations of which are illustrated in Fig. 1. All schemes have in common lines that run in a mixed-traffic (on-street) environment, often with the objective of replacing congested trunk bus services. The Central-Circular Quay and Hickson Road/Sussex Street proposals are not examined in detail here because they have been the subject of thorough analysis in several reports (City of Sydney Web site). The Glazebrook report presents the best-analysed network proposal and is used as the broad framework for this article. Other schemes, such as that presented on the Metro Light Rail Web site and those of community organisations, vary only in detail rather than basic corridors. These corridors, as identified in the Glazebrook report, are as follows: · Eastern - along Oxford Street and Bondi Road to Bondi Beach. · South Eastern - along Anzac Parade towards Maroubra. · Southern - through the southern industrial/residential area towards Mascot · Inner West - along Parramatta Road to Burwood and extension of the existing light rail line towards Canada Bay The Glazebrook report presents the justification for light rail in inner Sydney and the choice of these route corridors. This article does not revisit that ground but, rather, provides a more specific analysis of the broad physical practicalities of laying light rail lines along these corridors. Given the current debates about urban transport in Sydney, and the critical need for future-proofed solutions based on sustainable, locally-produced energy sources, it is timely to conduct this analysis to prove the concept on the ground, to dispel unfounded and outdated arguments often expressed by the State Government against extending light rail in Sydney and to identify specific alignments for protecting against development, a particular issue in this intensively-developed part of Sydney. In other areas, such as western Sydney, there is often still ample opportunity for developing light rail corridors. Fig. 1: The sectors and corridors recommended in the Glazebrook report. This analysis is also timely because of consideration by the NSW Government of construction of metro rail lines along certain corridors, including Victoria and Parramatta Roads and Anzac Parade. The comparative merits of light rail and bus have not been analysed in this context and it is to be hoped that scrutiny similar to the Glazebrook report will now be applied to these new proposals, because metro, with its greater station spacings, limited corridors and non-visible and less-accessible underground location is not the best mode for shorter distances with multiple corridors, such as in the eastern suburbs and inner west. There is a danger of a polemic emerging that metro and light rail are an ‘either/or’ alternative when in fact the two are complementary for different circumstances, metro being more suited to corridors with activity nodes over a distance of between about 8 and 20 km from the major centre where its speed advantage starts to outweigh the disadvantage of modal interchange. Some European cities optimistically closed tram lines when their metros were built but are now reopening them because it is now common wisdom that people prefer the convenience of surface transport over shorter distances. Metro does not replace the need for surface transport. The Issues Reservation vs Street Running Tram/light rail systems are at their most effective when they run in their own reservations without having to interact with road motor traffic. The Lilyfield (Inner West) and Anzac Parade (South Eastern) routes have extensive reservations, including space for passenger platforms at stops - although the Anzac Parade route has two stretches in which it must operate in a mixed-traffic environment. The Eastern corridor has some reservation while the Southern corridor has almost no potential for reservation running. However, in presenting plans that show light rail lines along existing roads in mixed traffic for official and public scrutiny, the case for light rail extensions is immediately challenged by the following issues: · roadside activity (business and residential strips that rely on the road as their only means of access); · traffic management (constraining motor traffic and modifying existing facilities such as turning lanes); and · passenger safety and accessibility (the benchmark being system-wide level platform access and 100% low-floor trams - see comments below at ‘Solutions - The Routes’). These issues have not been addressed in previous studies considering light rail options in Sydney. Most make hazy presumptions about on-street running, which can be politically disastrous, as the fate of the West London Tramway (UK) proposal shows. (It was to be routed along a narrow road with high levels of vehicle congestion and roadside activity like many of Sydney’s inner suburban roads and led to a strong public reaction.) Such presumptions ignore some of the very factors that brought about the closure of Sydney’s previous tramway system and that continue to plague the Melbourne system. Even currently in Sydney, the opposition by Bondi Road traders to the proposal to create a bus lane to free buses from endemic traffic congestion is a harbinger of the controversy that may be faced by any proposal to create a dedicated transit route along narrow inner-urban roads. It cannot be presumed that popular support for light rail will translate into support for every detail. Thus, there is a need for more detailed route designs to be worked up and tested to justify the case for light rail extensions in mixed-traffic and, above all, to ensure that light rail is significantly value-added and therefore well-justified as a replacement for existing trunk bus systems (this being apart from the issues of the advantages of light rail as a user of non petroleum-based energy and as a positive attractor of car-users to public transport compared to buses). Traffic Management Constraints At the outset it should be stated that, for an on-road tramway to be successful, there should be no motor traffic on the tram lines because traffic building up behind trams and trams stuck behind traffic will cause a delay-wave effect that holds up following trams. In this circumstance, the benefits of light rail will quickly evaporate. This discussion is therefore based on the premise that trunk route tram lines should be quarantined from use by general traffic, either by means of some physical obstruction or using road marking such as red coloured paving that it is illegal for motor vehicles to drive over, as for bus lanes. However, for roads with lower traffic flows, shared use of the tram track lanes may be acceptable - and indeed necessary on narrow streets. Dual-track tram lines running on streets take up the equivalent of two traffic lanes. These are generally median lanes because kerbside lanes have constraints such as pedestrian safety and the need to keep kerbs free for deliveries and breakdowns, or even for parking. If dual tram lanes are to be quarantined, such roads need to be at least four lanes wide. Introduction of dual tram lines on a four-lane road leaves two lanes (one each way) free for traffic/parking/deliveries (see Figs. 2a and 2b). On Sydney’s typical six-lane trunk roads (e.g. Parramatta Road and Oxford Street) four lanes (two each way) are left free. This is obviously going to cause some motor vehicle traffic capacity issues unless an alternative route is available nearby. However, this is not the only issue. Figs. 2a and 2b: Illustrating the issue. Top image (2a): A typical inner Sydney street, shown here in the 1950s. Two lanes are taken by tram tracks and two lanes by parking, leaving nowhere for moving traffic other than on the tram lines. If the tram lines are to be kept clear, parking and stopping in the kerb lane have to be prohibited. In addition, with modern light rail a platform is needed at stops to meet current accessibility standards. (Image: Hugh Ballment) Bottom image (2b): Artist’s impression of the proposed Castlereagh Street tramway. The tram lines are quarantined by solid painted lines so the car and van shown are presumably moving, as they could not stop without holding up traffic behind them. However, at least the street is still clearly available to motor traffic, contrary to government claims. There is no tram stop platform visible in this image but, to maintain segregation, it would have to be of the drive-over type described in this article. However, another illustration from this source appears to show a flare-out platform that would force traffic onto the tram line. It is important to be attentive to these details. (Image: City of Sydney Web site) The other issue (ignored in the all the discussion papers and maps to date) is tram stops for embarking and disembarking passengers. On outdated mixed-traffic street tramways such as in Melbourne, motor traffic stops while passengers cross the road between the tram and the kerb, creating traffic delays and reducing passenger safety and accessibility (passengers having to climb into the tram from road level).